Saddam's Files Show 9/11 Link

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 98
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    pfflam...how old are you? Just curious. We seem to be similar in our feelings on many subjects...but I just don't get the whole deal here on this issue...



    I seem to remember countless terrorist attacks abroad against the US. The kidnapping of US embassy in Iran seems to come to mind...why do you think that in 9|11 Iraq wasn't involved? Saudi Arabia even? Don't you get it? Anybody? Are you too young to understand or remember? Has this Arbusto propaganda machine really done it's work on you too? Hell, I wouldn't even blame them altogether...the media has done a good job of this too...right or left.



    Do some research. Find all the terrorist attacks in the last 30 years and see which ones were done against US involvement in some place or another. Or directed towards US citizens/soldiers (hint: Beruit) abroad. How many were of Middle Eastern origin. Make a list...maybe you'll see what I'm getting at...



    I do believe that 9|11 has changed the focus on terrorism...it's unfortunate that the Arbusto company is given the task to prevent it again.



    To me all this is no "new" news. Nothing new here...move on.







    I'm older than you are . . . most likely, being as I am 'prrretty ooold'



    The ME does not = Iraq.



    Iraq did give money to the widdows and families of Palastinian suicide bombers . . . the PLO and Saddam once had similar secular ideological origins and ideals: socialism/communism.



    OBL, 36 days before 911: "Hussain is an infidel tyrant" (paraphrased from memory)



    OBL: religious fanatic hell bent on establishing a Sharia grounded theocracy over the entire ME, if not teh whole globe

    Saddam: jsut wants to keep his little socialist gig going before eventually somehow taking the Baath party into world domination . . . but that was on the back burner.



    SH may have tolerated a few theocrazies roaming around (individuals), maybe even some strange band of folks up North (where, incidentally, he wasn't really allowed to operate with any sort of overwhelming military force) but he did not share any resources with OBL and AQ . . . . at least there is no REAL evidence to corroborate any REAL effort-sharing . . .



    . . .and the logic of their completely different natures and intentions would surely come close to discounting it, or at least making evidence to any real-power-sharing highly unlikely.



    (now let me catch up to what has been said)
  • Reply 82 of 98
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    You are kidding right? That is the logic you are going with?



    Read what you posted, out load.




    I think, NaplesX, that you perhaps did not realize that, rather than make that statement in order to show US culpablity, it was made to show how absurd it is to claim that Iraq State sponsorship results from some Iraqi citizens being AQ members!!



    Which in itself is still something that I am not so sure has been shown to have happened . . . any Iraqi citizens been arrested for AQ activities, before the war or outside of Iraq after the war?
  • Reply 83 of 98
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    These points about attempting to claim that random Iraqis who are involved with AQ clearly indicate Iraq's involvement are dead on. The point, as I said very early on in this thread, is that the obsession with finding a link between Iraq and AQ stems from the mistaken and old-school belief that terrorism requires state sponsorship.



    And why the failure of the Bush administration to make the shift from the cold war state vs state model to the, as segovius and artman point out, state vs stateless tribe model is such a fundamental problem. The problem with this wohlstetter/strauss clan is that the whole philosophy has always revolved around issues of states. To them, states are the fundamental political entity and the lowest level on which significant transcontinental conflicts can occur.
  • Reply 84 of 98
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    And why the failure of the Bush administration to make the shift from the cold war state vs state model to the, as segovius and artman point out, state vs stateless tribe model is such a fundamental problem. The problem with this wohlstetter/strauss clan is that the whole philosophy has always revolved around issues of states. To them, states are the fundamental political entity and the lowest level on which significant transcontinental conflicts can occur.



    Bingo. Speaking of Strauss, what'd you think of the Harper's piece?
  • Reply 85 of 98
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Bingo. Speaking of Strauss, what'd you think of the Harper's piece?



    It was ok . . . but it could have been longer, with more groundwork relating Strauss' ideas to Plato's proto-fascist elitist Idyl.



    It was especially good, though, when discussing the notion of the 'Noble lie' that the Elite of this form of Elitism need to tell in order to maintain their power.



    actually, if we could get a link (I think it is not online -giant?) it would make a good new thread!
  • Reply 86 of 98
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    It was ok . . . but it could have been longer, with more groundwork relating Strauss' ideas to Plato's proto-fascist elitist Idyl.



    It was especially good, though, when discussing the notion of the 'Noble lie' that the Elite of this form of Elitism need to tell in order to maintain their power.



    actually, if we could get a link (I think it is not online -giant?) it would make a good new thread!




    I'll see if I can dig one up. If it's not available, I can scan it as a PDF. Would anyone be interested?
  • Reply 87 of 98
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    I'll see if I can dig one up. If it's not available, I can scan it as a PDF. Would anyone be interested?



    Damn . . . I'd like to take part but am going away for a few days in about ten minutes . . . .



    i just looked at my post count and I somehow pased 3000 a while back
  • Reply 88 of 98
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Got it through one of our electronic subscriptions. Haven't finished it yet.



    Here's another good article from last year.



    http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...-3-77-1542.jsp
  • Reply 89 of 98
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    faust9 don't forget to add BuzzFlash to your list.



    I like reading Buzzflash and Drudge Report (aaaand Drudge RETORT) to balance my day out since they usually get news first (before slanting it one way or the other.) At least BuzzFlash and most liberal media sites don't just make shit up. They may slant but they don't just pull stuff out of their ass like Drudge who has been called on it numerous occasions.



    www.buzzflash.com

    www.drudge.com

    www.drudgereport.com



    Quote:

    Newsflash: Evidence shows link between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein!



    See the similarity? Oh, yeah, there is little similarity. While we have photographic and historical evidence showing that Rummy and Saddam are buddies, not even "Saddam's Files" as referenced in the article can prove anything except "knowing an associate of an associate" and not even necessarily dealing directly with either



    Exactly. I quoted it so NaplesX can read it again.
  • Reply 90 of 98
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    He's truly a puppet leader who is there for the hacks. The cronies in the background are running the show and they want their money, power and yes, OIL back.

    Wake up people. You're being duped again!



    Then why are you whining about Kerry on another thread if you know that to remove the neocons who call the shots we need to vote Bush out of office?
  • Reply 91 of 98
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    faust9 don't forget to add BuzzFlash to your list.



    I like reading Buzzflash and Drudge Report (aaaand Drudge RETORT) to balance my day out since they usually get news first (before slanting it one way or the other.) At least BuzzFlash and most liberal media sites don't just make shit up. They may slant but they don't just pull stuff out of their ass like Drudge who has been called on it numerous occasions.



    www.buzzflash.com

    www.drudge.com

    www.drudgereport.com







    Exactly. I quoted it so NaplesX can read it again.




    I don't go to Drudge that often. I hate the layout and most of the news is reprint or linked to other sources anyway.
  • Reply 92 of 98
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    Then why are you whining about Kerry on another thread if you know that to remove the neocons who call the shots we need to vote Bush out of office?



    Because he/she thinks he/she is superior to everyone else.
  • Reply 93 of 98
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    .......the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."







    ...from the Weekly Standard
  • Reply 94 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    The coup de gras of your post was when you linked a kidnapping in Iran to Saddam Hussain (mortal enemy of Iran) to 9|11. C'mon!!!



    Did I? No. Post where I did this. I don't see it.



    What I have been trying to state is that this so-called new WOT has been around for over 30 years...it hit our ass on 9|11. I never, ever connected the Iran kidnapping to Saddam/9|11.



    But if you simplify things...it is all black and white.



    Terrorists are terrorists. They can go anywhere they want and do anything they want. They can get money from anyone they want. Whether their clients or supporters believe in their cause or not. Look at the bombings in Spain.



    There are Irish terrorists and there were French ones. Japanese and American ones too. I excluded them for this only because the focus here is on the Middle East where the concentration of terrorist activity is high. But I shouldn't exclude the Pacific southeast and Far eastern areas either.



    Whether Saddam knew it or not...terrorists can walk right into Iraq, set up camp and train and indoctrinate their recruits and plans...without Saddam knowing. Just as they did in Afganistan...I know, I know, the Taliban gave Al Quaida the red carpet treatment, but where are they now? Iran? Syria? Iraq or between the borders of Afganistan/Pakistan? Malasia? United States? Take your pick. Because they will find a way to get anywhere they need to go.



    Let me clarify something...the Iran Hostage Crisis was the seed. What we have now is full-grown terrorism against US and it's interests. And yes, it is Middle Eastern in origin. If you don't see that you are blind.



    segovius ignore the last remark, I didn't see this third page and that you "saw the light"...



  • Reply 95 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    Then why are you whining about Kerry on another thread if you know that to remove the neocons who call the shots we need to vote Bush out of office?



    And I have begun to "see the light" if you've read the last post there...



    But do I believe that Kerry can do the job we need him to do? He still has to prove that...at least stick with what he says he'll do.



    <tinhat>I think that Kerry is just a Skull and Bones ploy for the neo-cons to keep the agenda going...Democrat or not he's a bonesman...</tin-hat>



    Return to topic...



  • Reply 96 of 98
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Artman @_@

    But do I believe that Kerry can do the job we need him to do? He still has to prove that...at least stick with what he says he'll do.



    No other way to find out but to vote him in. As much as we love to tout our form of democracy, we're far from perfect with a two party system rich in corporatism that sucks. So what can we do? Vote for the lesser, in this case much lesser, of two evils.
    Quote:

    <tinhat>I think that Kerry is just a Skull and Bones ploy for the neo-cons to keep the agenda going...Democrat or not he's a bonesman...</tin-hat>

    Return to topic...



    Being in Skull and Bones may mean something....or nothing at all. Trust me, Kerry will not appoint Class A neocon corporate whores to his administration.
Sign In or Register to comment.